Category: Essays

Hough, David A. “How SIT Students Help to Preserve an Endangered Language.” National Diet Library Search (NDL Search), Mar. 2003, ndlsearch.ndl.go.jp/books/R000000004-I6522459. Accessed 19 May. 2024.

This paper highlights the work being done to help preserve the Kosraean language, spoken by around 8,000 people who live on the island of Kosrae in the Federated States of Micronesia, and around another 2,000 who live off-island. While there is a 3-year project funded by the Japan Ministry of Education and Science, this paper focuses on the cooperation of students at Shonan Institute of Technology (SIT) and students and educators in Kosrae. Collaborating, they developed a trilingual children’s picture dictionary to be used in the first and second grades in Kosrae, with the three languages being Kosraean, Japanese, and English.

This source is beneficial to me because it backs up my claims that endangered languages are an issue to turn our heads to. This paper proves that it isn’t just happening in our communities, or even just in America, but is occurring around the world. It also gives insight into how we can prevent or alleviate it, making sure our languages and cultures stay alive for the many generations after us to come.

Mühlhäusler, Peter. “Preserving Languages or Language Ecologies? A Top-down Approach to Language Survival.” Oceanic Linguistics, vol. 31, no. 2, 1992, pp. 163–80. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/3623012. Accessed 19 May. 2024.

This paper aims to prove to us how important an ecological approach to linguistic phenomena can be in enriching our understanding of language and its structure. Advocated by Einar Haugen, this paper brings this ecological perspective to topics such as language survival, maintenance, and well-being. Peter includes multiple factors capable of manipulating the survival of languages, consisting of the number of speakers, relationships with other languages, patterns of transmission, speaker attitudes, domains of use, and institutional support. Language preservation is just but one aspect of linguistic diversity, which, in turn, is the basis for language regeneration and well-being.

This source is beneficial to me because it gives me unconventional ideas, ones that not only aim to combat the loss of language, but attack its issues at the roots. It mentions every aspect that may affect the loss of language, and how those areas can be treated to prevent catastrophes and restore language on the verge of extinction. Peter also combats a lot of universal ideas about preserving languages or how they should be dealt with and gives us insight into the mind of a linguist or professional, helping bring a new realm of thoughts to a topic that is seen as simpler than it truly is.

Cornelius, Carol. “Language As Culture: Preservation and Survival.” ProQuest, 31 Dec. 1994, www.proquest.com/docview/224782839?fromopenview=true&pqorigsite=gscholar&sourcetype=Scholarly%20Journals. Accessed 19 May. 2024.

This paper centers around the 1970’s, when the federal government funded language renewal (bilingual education) programs for the Native Americans who were denied their languages for many years, which started at the initiation of boarding schools. Until these programs, the languages stayed oral, until they were transcribed and added into booklets. This placed emphasis on the reading and writing of the language, to make sure it survived past oral teachings. Although many schools and classes came about from these federal programs, just like many others, most of them ended as their funding dwindled.

This source is beneficial to me as, just like David’s piece, it gives more proof of endangered languages being a prominent issue, centering her piece around a targeted group in our homeland, America. Carol demonstrates the key role the older generations have in passing on their language and culture, and the effort needed from the younger generation to accept and nurture it willingly. She shows us that with enough love, care, and hard work, it is possible to bring back these languages that were on the brink of extinction, giving us hope that we too, can do the same.

Soto, Lourdes Diaz. Smrekar, Jocelynn L. Nekcovei, Deanna L. et al. “Preserving Home Languages and Cultures in the Classroom: Challenges and Opportunities.” Directions in Language and Education, 30 Nov. 1998, eric.ed.gov/?id=ED436085. Accessed 19 May. 2024.

This paper centers around the decades of research done, proving the powerful academic and socio-affective benefits of a strong home language, and affirmation of home language and culture as a valuable resource. These authors explore the challenges, realities, opportunities, and practical implications of incorporating language and culture into classrooms, advocating for the acknowledgement of these students differences, as these differences are what bring richness, gifts, and wisdom. They provide many suggestions on what we can do to implement these changes, building more united and harmonious environments around us.

This source is beneficial to me as it documents the good in being different, and that it should be encouraged and accepted even in school settings, a place where these differences are often hidden. It helps advocate on my idea of accepting others cultures in school settings, and that it should be normalized to not let them disappear from our daily lives. This source helps demonstrate the importance of culture and language, as it is what makes up our identities, and is a common theme many of us face.

Alzayed, Norma Nawaf Yousef. “Preserving immigrants native language and cultural identity in multilingual and multicultural societies.” International Journal of Humanities and Social Science 5.2 (2015): 263-267. https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/48490154/preserving_immigrant_native_languagelibre.pdf1472754937=&responsecontentdisposition=inline%3B+filename%3DPreserving_Immigrants_Native_Language_an.pdf&Expires=1716131522&Signature=JnK8SClliJOoDp6pfk0eLpsXojOLX5yf3XZlL3gbURODB6hfpW3txrvPqf6f6B6SvX06YM0KiGCFzBO7hGdMQx0gXnkpn~SU0v8PazqHOO0uYTAoyQ7aj5clm89CQeCrz2Zp1PtJGzfs8Djr5Vrc0X1Qj2mHDKr082wNzqo45oT02detjf9aWCErrEWpAPOHksN90n042Fa3LHD16INF3xC5vbWFMfXSpKpMRa8fxunNCO3ZtkJNqoDs0B8mRB4aDm3K6QFErcWc69d~kEO~NSVodhFgAcLPqZhhHi7lVilRmQG8PhZ0S5nrsZ~5eFhqQ3PuPRSkkzUdyNN7YzA__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAJLOHF5GGSLRBV4ZA. Accessed 19 May. 2024.

This paper explores the significance and certain methods of preserving immigrants native languages and cultures in a multilingual and multicultural society. As people migrate around the world, they bring with them their cultures and languages. In trying to live life in these new societies, these important things they’ve brought are often lost, especially among the younger generations, which can have negative consequences. Alzayed emphasizes the role of parents, schools, and communities in keeping and maintaining these languages and cultures, with many suggestions on how we can all integrate into these new societies healthily, while retaining our true selves. 

This source is beneficial to me as it serves as a comprehensive exploration of the importance of preserving and maintaining our languages and cultures. It offers a lot of statistics, which are backed up by professionals, further helping exemplify our arguments. Alzayed also presents practical suggestions for parents, schools, and communities, the ones who play a crucial role in making sure we keep and stay in touch with such a vital part of our identities. 

Kim, Aleksandra. “The problems of preserving the language and culture of the Selkups.” Bicultural education in the North. Waxmann Münster/New York/München/Berlin (1998): 76-87. https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/70856054/bekim-libre.pdf?1633083309=&responsecontentdisposition=inline%3B+filename%3DThe_Problems_of_Preserving_the_Language.pdf&Expires=1716005322&Signature=CM7JDqfR92~AQ2N0uZ9VdJCfBIHm6aNn~EE8NSOf5S3Hu9OunTsOIPUzM80cI2g2KFMKdL3tsyvnDIfuv28RIXVFYZKXewI1Q6RLG8yWFWfFsPtPJYPqw4ETpBNvTDR3QCPzCVoPcJyHe5ZU5et8ROwP0Zz0lv8fxwMtZiCyFkUndQoeFad9hMNpIbgDn4k4gOj40UD7rgqz131sPq9zVgSZA9UZci0soZmesGmuNhvWvcO1mO7xUhU0lsmOcWgwFgTyWdP97yVyMmv~GBHJvL6yN16nRbD0zDHE7cfyDtMuUFdXemiwXoAgYBAf9VMO3dXoh4NAvIuvO9xA__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAJLOHF5GGSLRBV4ZA. Accessed 19 May. 2024.

This paper speaks on the dire language situation of the Samoyeds, a small population of people that live in the Tomsk and Tyumen regions. They face issues of administrative disconnection, urbanization, loss of traditional lifestyles, and the absence of a written language and educational resources, threatening the extinction of their language and culture. Tomsk scientists lead efforts to revive the Selkup language, being able to develop primers, dictionaries, and educational programs of the Selkup dialects. To this day, the Tomsk State Pedagogical University continues to create these educational materials, making it known that the integration of social and linguistic strategies is crucial in the journey of reviving the Selkup language and culture.

This source is beneficial to me as it provides an overview of the history and status of the Selkup culture, and what a language that is close to extinction faces on a daily basis. It describes the certain forces which led and continue to push back the Samoyeds, but with the effort of the Tomsk scientists, is slowly reviving their language and culture. By understanding these aspects of Kim’s paper, I am able to gain insight on the broader issues of language preservation that tackle our very own cultures today.

Lekatompessy, Felicia M. “Parental perspectives and practices in maintaining the heritage language (a case study of preserving Ambonese Malay).” Pattimura Excellence Journal of Language and Culture 1.1 (2021): 34-41. https://ojs3.unpatti.ac.id/index.php/pejlac/article/download/4220/3248. Accessed 19 May. 2024.

This paper explores the influence that globalization has on the daily use and maintenance of language and culture. With the growth of foreign/national language, the use of ones own becomes diminished and disregarded. Lekatompessy’s research on this topic comprised of the study of 22 parents from Ambon, examining their attitudes on matters of preserving their native language. The study revealed that the parents did have a positive outlook on preserving Ambonese Malay, and prove it through their commitment of various practices, such as teaching their children the language, speaking it in family settings, and advocating for its use in school settings. This source highlights, yet again, the influential role that parents have in the preservation, and continuation of language and culture.

This source is beneficial to me as I get to further understand the role that parents have in language preservation in the context of globalization. Lekatompessy’s research highlights the importance of actively engaging in communication, cultural events, and educational facets, as it is what sustains linguistic diversity and cultural language in a globalizing world. Her findings are very helpful, not only to scholars or policymakers, but those who want to make a change in their households for the better.

The Difficulties of Preserving One’s Language and Culture in a Multicultural World

In high school, in between periods, I would catch my friends in the hallway and spark up conversations with them. It would be the usual greetings, fast “what’s up!”’s and “I’ll see you later”’s, repeating this same cycle every day. Sometimes, though, I would overhear them speaking languages I’d never heard of, which quickly disappeared as soon as I approached them. It was like encountering a secret treasure, as once they noticed me the conversations shifted right back to English. I thought “Why do they feel the need to hide their identity?”, which made me think about the many times when, I too, have done the same. Living in a rapidly globalizing world, the preservation of language and culture is one faced in all societies. They often find themselves drowning in the depths of globalization, waiting for us to drag them out of the deepest waters, saving them from the horrors of extinction. As we go on with our daily lives, it’s easy to disregard and forget about our roots, finding it much more convenient and beneficial to stick with what everyone around you knows best. Despite this, we need to realize that there is more to language and culture than meets the eye, that they are an endless universe of abundance and different worlds to explore; that they are what truly makes us who we are. 

While reflecting on my friend’s reluctance to speak their native languages, I asked myself, “Where else in the world is this problem faced?” This issue isn’t just confined to my high school hallways, but is one that is faced globally. David speaks about his experience with the endangered Kosraean language, and how it was slowly getting forgotten by the convenience of the English language. At first, he didn’t know “how fragile the languages and cultures of these people really were” (Hough 66), until he involved himself with their project and saw the damages that came about. As Kosrae was undergoing shifts and growth, its citizens also sought growth, aiming to benefit from the English language being assimilated into their daily lives. The Kosrae DOE, partnering with the Kosrae government, created a program in which they made the Kosraean language the primary medium of instruction in their K-12 grades. They wanted to remove US school materials and replace them with their own, “…to help preserve and enrich the Kosraean language and culture… in a way which builds upon traditional Micronesian values” (Hough 68). 

Similarly, American Indians faced this in the late 19th century to the 1930s, and it is also apparent across the world in Siberia. Within American boarding schools, policies were put in place where people were “severely punished if caught speaking their languages and were indoctrinated to believe that native languages were inferior to English” (Cornelius). This led to some native communities only having elders speaking the language, while other communities lost their languages entirely. During the 1970s, the federal government funded language renewal programs, and with the help of these elders they “were taped, their words were transcribed and translated, and booklets were printed” (Cornelius). Even after these programs ended, the native peoples established their own schools and ways of education, ensuring that their languages lived for generations to come. While it is rare to find people who are now fluent speakers as a result of these efforts, we must realize that “in learning native languages we begin to view our world differently; we learn respect for all forms of life and we learn and understand that culture and language are intimately linked” (Cornelius). That it is these aspects of our roots that make up who we are.

The Selkups language and culture are also in danger, as they face assimilation, “administrative disconnection… the destruction of the traditional lifestyle… [and] the absence, for the Selkups, of a written language or educational and methodological literature” (Kim 77). Tomsk State Pedagogical University has strived to address these issues, collecting linguistic materials for over 40 years to produce educational resources. Alphabet books, dictionaries, textbooks, and more were created to aid the Selkup community’s cultural revival, even introducing the first primer of the Selkup dialect. Although many programs have been put into place to help the people of Tomsk, “only by means of a complex approach to the solution of all these problems will it be possible to support these first steps and generate the enthusiasm required to revitalize the national minorities” (Kim 86). 

Growing up in a Dominican household, I’ve always faced a world of intersecting languages and cultures. At home, I always spoke Spanish, whereas, at school, English was the shared language. In my first semester of college, I had an assignment in which we tapped into our roots, a journey of remembrance, appreciation, and exploration of the culture that shapes our identities. I remember hearing of all these new words, phrases, and traditions, and was fascinated by these other cultures. I was amazed by the richness other traditions hold, realizing how little I truly knew about the world, and making me appreciate my parents carrying on their culture to me. I admitted to myself that I loved hearing about everyone’s experiences and personal lives, wishing it wasn’t something that was so rare to come across. 

As Soto, Smrekar, and Nekcovei state, “demographic data from the U.S. Census show that, as of 1990, 14 percent of all children aged 5 to 17 (about 6.3 million) were reported as not speaking English at home” (1). Since then, the number has only increased, demonstrating the need for more culture in the classroom as “such diversity is the basis of language regeneration” (Mühlhäusler 178). Neglecting students’ identities inadvertently contributes to the loss of cultural heritage and language, as they may perceive it as inconsequential to their daily lives, garnering feelings that it is wasteful to continue pursuing it as “the desire to fit in can be overpowering” (Alzayed 264). Teachers, in hand with parents, should work to incorporate these themes into classrooms, recognizing the significance of “the diverse intergenerational wisdom shared by culturally and linguistically diverse families [that] can support and strengthen America’s goals” (Soto, Smrekar, & Nekcovei 2). Not only that, but they should acknowledge that skills cultivated at home through one’s native language can transfer directly to the ones learned in school settings.

This isn’t only a job for teachers, though, as parents “…should also be encouraged to continue speaking their native language at home with their children” (Alzayed 264). They shouldn’t be afraid of their children failing to succeed academically, nor try, in desperation, to assimilate since “…they will learn to speak, read and write the community language even better” (Alzayed 264). “People are proud of where they come from, they don’t want to be seen as the same, they want to be different” (Alzayed 264), and this pride only comes from one’s relationship with their roots, originating in their homes. As enticing as it may seem to be influenced by a new predominant lifestyle or culture, it is also important to hold onto your own, making sure you keep such an intrinsic part of your identity close to you.

As globalization starts to reach even our very own homes, it’s more important than ever to turn your head to the problem at hand, the fact “that there is a threat to native languages that threatens the loss of generations of speakers of that language” (Lekatompessy 34). With the recurrent appearance of the dominant English language in education, technology, and business, it “indirectly changes people’s views on the importance of learning the native languages” (Lekatompessy 35), risking their extinction. This is where the parental figures play a significant role, by encouraging the use of native languages at home and promoting certain policies and practices, they can make speaking the native language a daily occurrence, “…represent[ing] culture and family identity in general.” (Lekatompessy 35). 

Every year, my culture has always had a celebration appreciating it, showing it off, and remembering the vibrant traditions that hold us together. A day full of mouth-watering foods, vibrant and unique clothing, uplifting music, and our language, all from our roots. I, and many others, eagerly look forward to this day, a party where we can just be ourselves and let loose. There isn’t one person left out, anyone from the elders to the kids has a smile from ear to ear, having the time of their lives. As I’ve grown up, all I could ever think is “How can I make these days last forever?” and “How can other cultures remain as connected as mine?” Reflecting on these memories, I’ve come to realize that it isn’t only about safeguarding traditions, but the connections and unity between people, as it is that which keeps culture alive. 

A big step in preserving languages lies in understanding their ecology, as “preserving languages is often seen to involve putting them into man-made artificial environments such as grammars and dictionaries, [and] high literature…” (Mühlhäusler 164), but won’t have much success if this key aspect is neglected. This has to do with its relationships with other languages, who uses them and where they are used, its history, and people’s attitudes towards it. Although it is inevitable that languages will eventually erode, through constant care and active preservation endeavors catastrophes can be avoided, and they can survive for many more generations to come. “Just as languages need an oikos, a home in which they can live and develop, speakers need a home, a place where they belong that gives them a sense of identity” (Mühlhäusler 171), two distinct but significant aspects of preserving and nurturing the use of languages. That it “…involves more than [just] rescuing single languages or preserving texts…” but “…to preserve active use, discourse, functioning patterns of transmission, and other supporting ecological factors…” (Mühlhäusler 178).

By “…determining the type of language to be used when speaking between family members, building habits of using native languages in the family, applying rewards for those who use local languages when communicating in family and other environments” (Lekatompessy 35), parents can foster a safe environment regarding these languages. This helps younger generations fall in love with their roots themselves, instilling in them a profound appreciation for their culture. In recognizing that “language is about more than just words. It is the repository of personal experience” (Alzayed 264), we bring intimacy into our everyday lives, creating a connection with our culture that transcends mere words, but shapes the people we are today. That if “…we accept the challenge to preserve children’s rights to be culturally and linguistically competent by affirming children’s home language and home culture,” “collaboratively[,] we can reach a better place. Together, we can help to achieve an increasingly democratic and just nation.” (Soto, Smrekar, & Nekcovei 6).

What I’ve come to realize is that not only my language is slowly getting taken away by the English language, but so are many others. It is important for us, parents, teenagers, or community members, to stay deep-rooted in our language and culture. My personal stories, along with evidence of the effects of assimilation all around the world signify this as a serious issue, one which affects people and communities every day, and one which deserves our attention. Think back to moments with loved ones, ones where you’re enjoying yourself without a care in the world, all surrounded by the very culture we grew up with. They aren’t merely just words or celebrations; these are cherished moments that last a lifetime. Imagine a world where we can freely celebrate our diverse backgrounds openly and proudly, learning from each other, not fearing ridicule or feelings of inferiority. By embracing, encouraging, and appreciating our cultures, we not only honor our roots, but carry it on for many years to come. With our help, we can make sure that these cherished moments live into the future, and that the many generations after us can continue creating their own long after our departure.

---

Works Cited

Hough, David A. “How SIT Students Help to Preserve an Endangered Language.” National Diet Library Search (NDL Search), Mar. 2003, ndlsearch.ndl.go.jp/books/R000000004-I6522459. Accessed 19 May. 2024.

Mühlhäusler, Peter. “Preserving Languages or Language Ecologies? A Top-down Approach to Language Survival.” Oceanic Linguistics, vol. 31, no. 2, 1992, pp. 163–80. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/3623012. Accessed 19 May. 2024.

Cornelius, Carol. “Language As Culture: Preservation and Survival.” ProQuest, 31 Dec. 1994, www.proquest.com/docview/224782839?fromopenview=true&pqorigsite=gscholar&sourcetype=Scholarly%20Journals. Accessed 19 May. 2024.

Soto, Lourdes Diaz. Smrekar, Jocelynn L. Nekcovei, Deanna L. et al. “Preserving Home Languages and Cultures in the Classroom: Challenges and Opportunities.” Directions in Language and Education, 30 Nov. 1998, eric.ed.gov/?id=ED436085. Accessed 19 May. 2024.

Alzayed, Norma Nawaf Yousef. “Preserving immigrants native language and cultural identity in multilingual and multicultural societies.” International Journal of Humanities and Social Science 5.2 (2015): 263-267. https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/48490154/preserving_immigrant_native_languageibre.pdf1472754937=&responsecontentdisposition=inline%3B+filename%3DPreservig_Immigrants_Native_Language_an.pdf&Expires=1716131522&Signature=JnK8SClliOoDp6pfk0eLpsXojOLX5yf3XZlL3gbURODB6hfpW3txrvPqf6f6B6SvX06YM0KiGFzO7hGdMQx0gXnkpn~SU0v8PazqHOO0uYTAoyQ7aj5clm89CQeCrz2Zp1PtJGzfsDjrVrc0X1Qj2mHDKr082wNzqo45oT02detjf9aWCErrEWpAPOHksN90n042Fa3LHD6INFxC5vbWFMfXSpKpMRa8fxunNCO3ZtkJNqoDs0B8mRB4aDm3K6QFErcWc69~kEO~SVodhFgAcLPqZhhHi7lVilRmQG8PhZ0S5nrsZ~5eFhqQ3PuPRSkkzUdyNN7YA__&Ky-Pair-Id=APKAJLOHF5GGSLRBV4ZA. Accessed 19 May. 2024.

Kim, Aleksandra. “The problems of preserving the language and culture of the Selkups.” Bicultural education in the North. Waxmann Münster/New York/München/Berlin (1998): 76-87. https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/70856054/bekim-libre.pdf?1633083309=&responscontentdisposition=inline%3B+filename%3DThe_Problems_of_Preserving_the_Langage.pdf&Expires=1716005322&Signature=CM7JDqfR92~AQ2N0uZ9VdJCfBIHm6anEE8NSOf5S3Hu9OunTsOIPUzM80cI2g2KFMKdL3tsyvnDIfuv28RIXVFYZKXewI16RG8yWFWfFsPtPJYPqw4ETpBNvTDR3QCPzCVoPcJyHe5ZU5et8ROwP0Zz0lv8fwMtiCyFkUndQoeFad9hMNpIbgDn4k4gOj40UD7rgqz131sPq9zVgSZA9UZci0soZmesGuNhvWvcO1mO7xUhU0lsmOcWgwFgTyWdP97yVyMmv~GBHJvL6yN16nRbDzDHEcfyDtMuUFdXemiwXoAgYBAf9VMO3dXoh4NAvIuvO9xA__&Key-Pair-Id=AKAJLOHFGGSLRBV4ZA. Accessed 19 May. 2024.

Lekatompessy, Felicia M. “Parental perspectives and practices in maintaining the heritage language (a case study of preserving Ambonese Malay).” Pattimura Excellence Journal of Language and Culture 1.1 (2021): 34-41. https://ojs3.unpatti.ac.id/index.php/pejlac/article/download/4220/3248. Accessed 19 May. 2024.

What is your research question/rhetorical situation?

The Difficulties of Preserving One’s Language and Culture in a Multicultural World

What is your connection to rhetorical situation and why are you uniquely placed to write about it?

I connect to this rhetorical situation as it is something I have faced, and is a prevalent issue I have noticed many of our cultures facing. I am uniquely placed to write about it as I have experience on this topic, and I feel as though it isn’t as widely preached as it should be. People should be more educated and enlightened on this topic, as it has been disregarded for too long. 

Where do you imagine your writing “existing”? (newspaper, magazine, youtube, personal blog)

I imagine my writing existing in a personal blog.

Who is your target audience?

My target audience could really be anyone. Whether it be adults (parents) or the younger generation, I feel like they will both benefit from more knowledge and enlightenment on this topic, and will get them to care about their origins enough to make a change. 

What form will your writing take? (Research paper, narrative, letter, script.)

My writing will most likely take the form of a research paper, aiming to prove that this is a issue we need to think about more, and ways we can fix this for generations to come. I may also mix in some narrative stories from my experience to show how my experience may relate to other’s experiences.

Why is this form the most effective way to communicate to your target audience?

This form is the most effective way to communicate to my target audience as people always seek evidence that an issue exists, and to help them come to terms with it, also relating it to their lives. I want them to reflect on their relationships with their cultures and to see their strengths and weaknesses within them. This will bring upon action on their parts, showing that they may need to strengthen their bonds with their origins. 

What is the value you’re trying to impart on your audience?

The value I’m trying to impart on my audience is the importance of one’s culture in their lives. With many people assimilating into these new places away from their origins, they tend to forget or disregard it, pushing it aside and losing that part of their identity. I want them to realize that culture is much more important than they think, and that they are missing out on worlds of richness, diversity, uniqueness, and a sense of belonging and connection to their roots.

The Difficulties of Preserving One’s Language and Culture in a Multicultural World

Although not widely preached, the difficulties of preserving one’s language and culture in a multicultural world remain vigilant. This may even be attacking the very institutions our households are brought up upon, proving to be a danger against the things we identify ourselves as, our cultures. Without this, we’ll be losing a vital part of ourselves, and never even allow it to exist in the generations to come. In this essay, I will be describing the relationship between Peter Mühlhäusler’s “Preserving Languages or Language Ecologies? A Top-down Approach to Language Survival,” and David A. Hough’s “How SIT Students Help to Preserve an Endangered Language.” Both authors use rhetorical appeals, canons, and conventions to boast their claims on the pressing issue of preserving language in the modern world. With their uses of logos, straightforward and coherent structures, and styles/tones, they effectively display their claims in many similar and different ways.

Both David and Peter demonstrate their ideas on language preservation with logos, revealing the facts behind language, and why it has come to be an issue all should know of. With logos, both authors aim to back up their reasons with either history, examples, or famous philosophers to bolster their arguments. While they both use this same appeal, their focuses differ. David focuses on the landscape of language, their relationships with one another, and where they are used, while Peter centers around the broader range of preservation of culture, emphasizing the need for cultural diversity through the continual use of their languages, as “such diversity is the basis of language regeneration” (Mühlhäusler 17). David’s statistics are focused on empirical data and its connection to the Kosraean language, being more technical than Peter’s, in which his logos are infused with philosophy and reflection, bringing a different view to the topic of language that we may have never heard of. Converging in depth as well, David’s specific use of explanations and examples counters Peter’s more broadened and generalized view of language’s importance, as he aims for a “greater social consciousness among Japanese students as well as help to preserve and enrich a Micronesian language and culture” (Hough 74), while Peter asserts “language maintenance involves more than rescuing single languages or preserving texts” (Mühlhäusler 163). Despite this, both authors’ differences fit perfectly with their choice of structures, complementing and enhancing their pieces further.

Additionally, David and Peter have distinct structure approaches differentiating their pieces. Similarly, both authors fit within the realm of ordinary essays, having an introduction, body paragraphs, and a conclusion, backing up their findings or ideas with evidence. They introduce their topic, defining it, and stating their motivation for their projects. Both pieces flow smoothly and have a coherent structure, making it easy for the reader to follow. Where they differ is their content, in which David transitions into the specificity of his essay, the Kosraean language. Finally, he introduces projects that are being implemented to help preserve and expand the use of this language, “collaborative work being done between the Kosrae State Department of Education in the Federates States of Micronesia (FSM) and students and faculty at Shonan Institute of Technology” (Hough 73-74). On the other hand, Peter introduces and challenges pre-existing views, then, introduces his own views, all surrounded by his philosophy of “why linguists should pay attention to all languages of an area rather than concentrate on the grammar of individual languages” (Mühlhäusler 163). These different structural arrangements aid their pieces tremendously, helping the reader not only comprehend each aspect thoroughly, but help the authors convey their ideas in a matter that makes them a focal point. This leaves readers reflecting on these ideas beyond the conclusions of these pieces.

Lastly, David and Peter approach language and culture preservation with styles and tones conformed to their appropriate audiences. Overall, both authors adopt a serious and academic tone, creating an urgency for action on this issue. Peter’s piece aims directly at lawmakers, scholars, and experts, challenging laws and linguistic practices while introducing his own, arguing about “the almost universal lack of attention to wider ecological questions” (Mühlhäusler 171) and how “it will require much unlearning on the part of those who have traditionally made decisions about language matters” (Mühlhäusler 178). David’s piece does the same, also targeting lawmakers, scholars, and experts, but unlike Peter, he leaves room for casual readers with his simple, easy-to-understand language. He aims to enlighten his audience, as initially, he didn’t know “how fragile the languages and cultures of these people really were” (Hough 66). While Peter’s style directly reaches for those involved in language preservation efforts, David speaks on his experiences with involving himself in this issue, aiming to enlighten and inform readers. With this, Peter relies on the help of other linguists and scholar writers, while David relies on his findings and history to support his ideas. Despite having differences in both style and tones, both authors effectively relay the urgency needed on the issue of language preservation in modern times. 

In conclusion, both Peter Mühlhäusler and David A. Hough emphasize the importance of language and cultural preservation, even amidst a world trying to forget them. While using rhetorical appeals, canons, and conventions, they argue for this issue, stressing its urgency and raising awareness of this disregarded topic. While David’s approach is more statistic-oriented, it brings credibility to his statements, appealing to the readers’ logical reasoning and their understanding of his topic with real-world examples on the issue of losing language. It helps readers relate this to their own lives, and bring awareness to the languages around them that could be disappearing day by day. On the other hand, Peter’s philosophical approach gives birth to new worlds on the idea of language, showing how it isn’t as basic as it may seem. He makes readers think about the different layers that blanket each other, revolutionizing our current views on the issue of language preservation. Both authors also recognize their intended audience of lawmakers, scholars, and experts, further strengthening their arguments as they tailor their pieces to fit in their realms of expertise. Despite their differences in these areas, they both persuade their audiences to take action and have more appreciation for the languages and cultures around them. Peter and David remind us that as we navigate our increasingly homogenous world, we are the ones responsible for safeguarding and preserving our languages for future generations to come.

The Difficulties of Preserving One’s Language and Culture in a Multicultural World

Although not widely preached, the difficulties of preserving one’s language and culture in a multicultural world remain vigilant. This may even be attacking the very institutions our households are brought up upon, proving to be a danger against the things we identify ourselves as, our cultures. Without this, we’ll be losing a vital part of ourselves, and never even allow it to exist in the generations to come. In this essay, I will be describing the relationship between Peter Mühlhäusler’s “Preserving Languages or Language Ecologies? A Top-down Approach to Language Survival,” and David A. Hough’s “How SIT Students Help to Preserve an Endangered Language.” Both Peter and David use rhetorical appeals, canons, and conventions to boast their claims on the pressing issue of preserving language in the modern world. With their uses of logos, straightforward and coherent structures, and styles/tones, they are able to effectively display their claims in many similar and different ways.

Both David and Peter demonstrate their ideas on language preservation with the use of logos, revealing the facts behind language, and why it has come to be an issue all should know of. With logos, both authors aim to back up their reasons with history, examples, and famous philosophers to bolster their arguments. While they both use this same appeal, their focuses differ. David focuses on the landscape of language, their relationships with one another, and where they are used, while Peter centers on the broader range of preservation of culture, emphasizing the need for cultural diversity through the continual use of their languages, as “such diversity is the basis of language regeneration” (Peter 17). David’s statistics are focused on empirical data and its connection to the Kosraean language, being more technical than Peter’s, in which his logos is infused with philosophy and reflection, bringing a different view to the topic of language that we may have never heard of. Converging in depth as well, David’s specific use of explanations and examples counters Peter’s more broadened and generalized view of language’s importance, as he aims for a “greater social consciousness among Japanese students as well as help to preserve and enrich a Micronesian language and culture” (David 74), while Peter asserts “language maintenance involves more than rescuing single languages or preserving texts” (Peter 163). Despite this, both authors’ differences fit perfectly with their choice of structures, complementing and enhancing their pieces further.

Additionally, David and Peter have distinct structure approaches differentiating their pieces. Similarly, both authors fit within the realm of ordinary essays, having an introduction, body paragraphs, and a conclusion, backing up their findings or ideas with evidence. They introduce their topic, defining it, and stating their motivation for their projects. Both pieces flow smoothly and have a coherent structure, making it easy for the reader to follow. Where they differ is their content, in which David transitions into the specificity of his essay, the Kosraean language. Finally, he introduces projects that are being implemented to help preserve and expand the use of this language, “collaborative work being done between the Kosrae State Department of Education in the Federates States of Micronesia (FSM) and students and faculty at Shonan Institute of Technology” (David 73-74). On the other hand, Peter introduces and challenges pre-existing views, then, introduces his own views, all surrounded in his philosophy of “why linguists should pay attention to all languages of an area rather than concentrate on the grammar of individual languages” (Peter 163). These different structural arrangements aid their pieces tremendously, helping the reader not only comprehend each aspect thoroughly, but helping the authors convey their ideas in a matter which makes them a focal point. This leaves readers reflecting on these ideas beyond the conclusions of these pieces.

Lastly, David and Peter approach language and culture preservation with styles and tones conformed to their appropriate audiences. Overall, both authors adopt a serious and academic tone, creating an urgency for action on this issue. Peter’s piece aims directly at lawmakers, scholars, or experts, challenging laws and linguistic practices while introducing his own, arguing about “the almost universal lack of attention to wider ecological questions” (Peter 171) and how “it will require much unlearning on the part of those who have traditionally made decisions about language matters” (Peter 178). David’s piece does the same, but unlike Peter, he leaves room for casual readers with his simple, easy-to-understand language. He aims to enlighten his audience, as initially, he didn’t know “how fragile the languages and cultures of these people really were” (David 66). While Peter’s style directly reaches for those involved in language preservation efforts, David speaks on his experiences with involving himself in this issue, aiming to enlighten and inform readers. With this, Peter relies on the help of other linguists and scholar writers, while David relies on his findings and history to support his ideas. Despite having differences in both style and tones, both authors effectively relay the urgency needed on the issue of language preservation in modern times. 

In conclusion, both Peter Mühlhäusler and David A. Hough emphasize the importance of language and culture preservation, even amidst a world trying to forget them. While using rhetorical appeals, canons, and conventions, they argue for this topic, stressing its urgency and raising awareness of this disregarded topic. Despite their differences in these areas, they both make strong claims and introduce unique ideas, persuading people to take action and have more appreciation for the languages and cultures around them.